I assume the reason is that it's not about a super hero and/or it can't have 5 prequels and 7 sequels spun off if it. Seriously, why can't we just have an occasional great story that has an ending?
I wouldn't really call U.S. Marshals a sequel, per se. It's more a film that takes place in the same universe as The Fugitive and features many of the same characters.
In the genre of the 30-years-later follow-up, I actually wouldn't mind another spin-off from The Fugitive ... if it followed the same format, and was as tightly written as the original.
> Seriously, why can't we just have an occasional great story that has an ending?
China.
Foreign markets are now a significant chunk of the big studios' movie profits. If the story isn't super direct and generic, it won't work in translation, and that will cost money.
Are you sure? China's quota system makes it pretty hard for Hollywood films to make it in China [0]. Only a few of the absolute biggest films will have a chance of releasing in China.
It's not that films actually get into Chinese theaters. They all try. Some of them get to run in Chinese theaters, and those that do tend to make bank. However, those are chosen by theater owners to fill a limited number of spots, so theater owners want to make sure that it is a hit before buying.
Additionally, the Chinese censors will cut off all movies from a studio if that studio produces anything that goes against the party. Disney was blocked between 1996 and 1998 for producing a movie about Tibet. A movie that was never intended for the Chinese market at all, but one that went against the party narrative.
As I understand it , China is a bigger market for Hollywood than the US at this point. A lot of Blockblusters are written around what will fly in China and what wont cause CCP censors to object.
That said, I dont have a ready source for this but I definitely have read it before somewhere.
> As I understand it , China is a bigger market for Hollywood than the US at this point.
Definitely not at this point. There was a point it looked likely five years ago, but US box office is holding up better than expected, and the Chinese government increasingly block release of the vast majority of US films.
More generally, compare worldwide box with domestic. There are films that gross 10x oversees selling "American blockbusters" that all but flop in the US. It's why so many film franchises have felt so puzzling, disconnected, and out of place over the past twenty years.
Hollywood doesn't make film for Americans any more than the baubles at tourist traps give insight into local life.
Art produced for massive audiences typically requires a massive investment, so it’s produced with the same concerns as other massive investments.
Arthouse films still exist, but you know, there does seem to be something unique about an action movie that wraps itself up. I wonder if they’re out there.
Movies in the past were made for mass audiences. But they existed in a world before social media, cell phones, podcasts, streaming tv and all the other entertainment we have now.
People who enjoyed movies such as The Fugitive do not go to cinemas anymore as much. Cinema going audiences shrunk severly. The only reliable market is kids movies, superhero movies and established franchises.
but I am too jaded, corporate hollywood banks on safe movies, remakes/prequels/sequels. Its because its guaranteed profit that makes accountants happy.
That's why we hardly get anything interesting movies to see, nobody is allowed to risk or have their vision.
Also cinemas have been largely monopolized and deal with big producers mainly. Tarantino gave an interview about how (i think) hateful 8 was push out of schedule because disney demanded from multiplex only disney releases in given time frame.
And lastly I personally HATE average movie goer, talking, phones, eating snacks like pigs. I'd rather watch it home
The box office was apparently like 4x the budget. Are those directly comparable? It seems to me that, even if they aren't making Disney money, a studio ought to be able to keep the lights on if they can reliably quadruple their investments.
A) not all movies break even, most lose money, so the "hits" are needed to keep the lights on. It's not unlike VC investing.
Ironically small movies tend to lose money because they're small, telling small stories, with small ambitions. Ultimately these don't attract much of a cinema audience, and even those who enjoy them won't necessarily encourage others because (B). Streaming is a new, and perfect market for these with a very wide global audience - but making it for streaming takes out all the upside, even further constraining the budget.
There is no "community" (aka audience) already in place for some random new action movie. It costs a fortune to make, and returns are highly variable.
Contrast this with star-*, marvel, James bond, Tolkien etc. There's a pre-established market for these. If your gonna spend North of 100 million (or a billion for LOTR) there better be some expectation there.
Which brings us to (B).
B) - why go watch it in a cinema? Growing up my TV was tiny, sound was rubbish, quality was bad. And cinema was cheap. It really was "better on the big screen". Now my TV is huge, sound is amazing, I can pause to go yo the loo. And a month on streaming costs less than a single movie ticket.
Sure there are still movies made for the big screen - Top Gun Maverick is grand in scope and beautifully filmed, and imax worthy. And Tom worked hard for 3 years convincing people to go see it (spoiler: worth the wait.) it's a sequel, barely, not a franchise - but we very much know the movie we are going to see.
The point being that that is the first time I've been to a cinema in 3 years. Before that I've seen maybe one a year, much less an average. I figure 99% of the movies I watch now are at home.
To those complaining about all movies being Marvel, well clearly they aren't. But if you want variety in movies then the cinema is not the place to look. The variety is now on streaming where small movies with modest budgets can better reach a wider shallower audience.
Having worked in art-house cinema for a while I beg to differ. Not only big action movies work in cinemas. Also art-house and specially quiet or slow movies tend to have a better effect and deeper experience in cinema. Often because of the fact that you can not pause and go to the loo or check your phone or get some other way distracted.
This does work better in art-house cinemas with quiet and invested audience. And people are different, audiences are different and peoples home watching experiences are different. But I can see clearly how the longer I work in cinema the more I prefer watching a movie in big screen instead at home. Even if I just watch it alone in big auditorium. Both for the ritual of taking the time out from other activities and completely focusing on the movie and enjoyment that good camerawork, acting, set-design and sound come better our on the big screen.
Obviously every viewing experience is different. In the end movie watching is experience between the viewer, film and co-audience. I have had many unforgettable evenings with very run down equipment or small screens. But I do feel that in our more and more distracted times cinemas carry a good function to present a film in distraction free setting, with good quality and mood supporting environment.
In addition to the technical quality I have learned to enjoy more and more how much enjoyment it is if someone knowable has made a choices and put together a film program. Like any good curator it brings out options I would never know to look for myself or would not really investigate because of my biases. Sadly it is finically more easy to sustain this kind of program in film festivals not in everyday cinemas.
Clearly I'm not saying that cinema is dead - or that no-one is going to the cinema. I'm saying that small art films appears to small audiences, and so finding the number of willing watchers in a given location, which add enough loot into the system to keep both the cinema open, and also the film-makers in the black is getting hard.
Tickets are expensive enough to keep me at home, and while watching in a cinema can be fun there are also times it's less so. Some theaters have better seats, others are worse and so on. Ultimately distributing movies via cinema's adds a very high cost to me seeing it. And in 99% of cases I consider that cost untenable.
So, I'm not saying the cinema approach is bad, just that outside of some very narrow places there just isn't the demand enough to keep a cinema open, much less make any kind of dent in the profitability of the movie itself.
Got to remember the studio only actually gets around 50-60% of the box office, and budgets don’t include advertising. A 2.5x or 3x box office is around break even
I’ll offer “Riders of Justice” as an excellent recent movie that was marketed as an action film but which (while containing some action) is much more character driven.
